The readings for this week focused on the social implications of new scientific technology, namely genomic analysis that allows us the ability to delve deeper into our own DNA. Genetics has become a new tool for not only medical research, but it has created new avenues for thinking about personal identity and group belonging.
Two of the readings, "The Science and Business of Genetic Ancestry Testing" and "The Meanings of “Race” in the New Genomics: Implications for Health Disparities Research", warn heavily against using this new knowledge of individual genetic composition as a truth that trumps all other truths, specifically when considering racial identity. The first article discusses the implications of establishing ancestry through DNA tests and the second article discusses how by assuming that race exists, scientific experiments are designed in a way that reproduces and reinforces biological racial distinctions. Simply because a genomic test might indicate that your DNA shows certain traits, does not mean that you are certainly descendent from one race or another. Additionally, these results should not negate the social and cultural aspect of racial identity and group formation. I appreciate how the authors of "The Meanings of "Race" in the New Genomics" acknowledged the difference between the social meaning of race and the biological meaning of race - drawing a distinction between race that is socially constructed and very much embedded into our society and the race that has been shown to have no biological significance among homo sapiens. These authors warn us about the serious implications these genomic tests could have on not only our morality, but also on our individual psychology and understanding of group identity. The first couple of chapters from Sarah Wagner's To Know Where He Lies: DNA Technology and the Search for Srebrenica's Missing discusses the way that DNA testing has been used to assist a population in a post-war context, shaping their national identity after violent tragedy and war. She discusses the historical and post war context of Srebrenica, setting the stage for the start of DNA testing of the missing men, emphasizing how the women of the community had an integral role in overseeing these tests.
We continue with the theme of science as a cultural construct that has significant influence on our society's knowledge base and understanding of the world. Perhaps it is because I've been reading a lot of Foucault, but the article, The Meanings of "Race" in the New Genomics" really struck me in the way it discussed the importance of terminology and the ways in which race is reproduced in science because there is a sociopolitical assumption that it is significant. Additionally, it is important for scientists to recognize the implications of continuing to emphasize racial groups in the discussion of public health due to the fact, as the authors had stated, it is built off of a history of racial discrimination and recreates a form of biological race - even though it has been show - with the same genomic technology, that there is no biological difference of race. This is in the same vein as Latour's train analogy - except more circular and self-reinforcing. The world becomes the lab, in that biological race becomes significant in public health discourse, however, the lab made racial assumptions based off of historical conditions within that society. Knowledge is produced and seen as truth, especially with microbiological technologies that analyze and pick apart the "building blocks" of our biological, physical selves - but we must acknowledge that this information is presented in was that function to reinforce normative biases, whether intentionally or not.
Two of the readings, "The Science and Business of Genetic Ancestry Testing" and "The Meanings of “Race” in the New Genomics: Implications for Health Disparities Research", warn heavily against using this new knowledge of individual genetic composition as a truth that trumps all other truths, specifically when considering racial identity. The first article discusses the implications of establishing ancestry through DNA tests and the second article discusses how by assuming that race exists, scientific experiments are designed in a way that reproduces and reinforces biological racial distinctions. Simply because a genomic test might indicate that your DNA shows certain traits, does not mean that you are certainly descendent from one race or another. Additionally, these results should not negate the social and cultural aspect of racial identity and group formation. I appreciate how the authors of "The Meanings of "Race" in the New Genomics" acknowledged the difference between the social meaning of race and the biological meaning of race - drawing a distinction between race that is socially constructed and very much embedded into our society and the race that has been shown to have no biological significance among homo sapiens. These authors warn us about the serious implications these genomic tests could have on not only our morality, but also on our individual psychology and understanding of group identity. The first couple of chapters from Sarah Wagner's To Know Where He Lies: DNA Technology and the Search for Srebrenica's Missing discusses the way that DNA testing has been used to assist a population in a post-war context, shaping their national identity after violent tragedy and war. She discusses the historical and post war context of Srebrenica, setting the stage for the start of DNA testing of the missing men, emphasizing how the women of the community had an integral role in overseeing these tests.
We continue with the theme of science as a cultural construct that has significant influence on our society's knowledge base and understanding of the world. Perhaps it is because I've been reading a lot of Foucault, but the article, The Meanings of "Race" in the New Genomics" really struck me in the way it discussed the importance of terminology and the ways in which race is reproduced in science because there is a sociopolitical assumption that it is significant. Additionally, it is important for scientists to recognize the implications of continuing to emphasize racial groups in the discussion of public health due to the fact, as the authors had stated, it is built off of a history of racial discrimination and recreates a form of biological race - even though it has been show - with the same genomic technology, that there is no biological difference of race. This is in the same vein as Latour's train analogy - except more circular and self-reinforcing. The world becomes the lab, in that biological race becomes significant in public health discourse, however, the lab made racial assumptions based off of historical conditions within that society. Knowledge is produced and seen as truth, especially with microbiological technologies that analyze and pick apart the "building blocks" of our biological, physical selves - but we must acknowledge that this information is presented in was that function to reinforce normative biases, whether intentionally or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment